Is that because their vision fails to provide the information necessary to drive safely? Or is it due to distraction and/or poor judgment? I don't actually know the answer to this, but I assume distraction/judgment is a bigger factor.
I'm not a fan of the camera-only approach and think Tesla is making a mistake backing it due to path-dependence, but when we're _only_ talking about this is _broadly theoretical_ terms, I don't think they're wrong. The ideal autonomous driving agent is like a perfect monday morning quarterback who gets to look at every failure and say "see, what you should have done here was..." and it seems like it might well both have enough information and be able too see enough cases to meet some desirable standard of safety. In theory. In practice, maybe they just can't get enough accuracy or something.
According to NHTSA, about half of all fatal crashes occur at night, even though only 25% of driving happens at nighttime. So yes, we are pretty bad at this.
I totally agree, I think most accidents are caused by human nature (especially slow reaction time in specific conditions like being tired or drunk) and ignoring laws of physics (driving too fast). And some are just a pure bad luck (something/someone getting on the road right in front of the car).
Can anyone speak to whether this is likely to succeed on its merits, or point to analysis of same by competent professionals?
Obviously, it looks like a pretty egregious case of Oracle-ness, but it's the job of Deno's lawyers to make it look like that. I'd be interested to see disinterested commentary.
I just started following a show on twitch called the litigation disaster tourism hour which is a lawyer commenting on various cases, and currently covering the WordPress stuff. Seems like it might be up his alley if somebody asks in his chat, though I generally can't catch it live to do that because of time zones
> Our community has persistent and pervasive problems of a particular sort which we are not allowed to talk about: sexual harassment and assault. Men who assault, harass, and even rape women in our spaces, are protected.
This is completely alien to my personal experience. Does this match anyone else's personal experience? Have I just avoided all the objectionable events by sheer luck?
If this statement is true, I would have expected to have observed at least some harassment or mild assault by now, but I haven't. I can't think of an instance. I mean, one time I saw some guy grab some girl's ass, but it turned out she was his wife.
> I attended a hacker event this year – HiP Berlin – where I discovered that some of the organizers had cooperated to make it possible for multiple known rapists to participate, working together to find a way to circumvent the event’s code of conduct – a document that they were tasked with enforcing.
This is just kind of strange. It's not clear what he means by "circumvent" the code of conduct. Is he saying that they were rapists in the opinions of the organizers? And that if they were rapists in the opinions of the organizers then they should have barred them from the event, but they didn't?
I would assume that the most likely situation is that something happened which Drew thinks means the people in question are "known rapists" but the event organizers did not. And not knowing the facts, we can't really say which of them is right.
I mean, unless I'm supposed to just believe that Drew is right because he's speaking up about a difficult topic or something like that. At the risk of potentially silencing marginalized people with extraordinary standards of evidence: no, I won't just believe him.
> This is completely alien to my personal experience. Does this match anyone else's personal experience? Have I just avoided all the objectionable events by sheer luck?
I've seen this a lot, folks protecting and defending men (in particular) that assault women. They do it under the guise of "innocent until proven guilty," as though we are operating as agents in courts of law. That's what Drew is describing in the post, in different words. You may have been lucky enough to avoid seeing this but it definitely happens.
> even intentionally tweeting misinformation wouldn't break this law unless you were conspiring with others to do it.
Okay, but it has to break some law. You can't be convicted of conspiracy if you're conspiring to do something which is legal. If you actually completed the act you and the other conspirators planned, and this act was not a crime, then your conspiracy can't be a crime either.
I don't actually know if intent is sufficient in this case. So maybe if nobody actually fell for it (or they did, but the government didn't bother to submit any evidence of this) then that would excuse it in law. 4900 people might have texted the number, but maybe half of them didn't have a vote, and the other half figured it out later and ultimately did vote. Maybe not, but if you have a sworn statement from someone that they didn't vote because of this, then there's no ambiguity about whether the harm actually occurred.
I don't think this is true for all crimes. If I punch you that's assault. If I try to punch you and miss, that's not the crime of attempted assault. It can in some circumstances be other crimes, but not attempted assault (which afaict generally isn't a thing).
What I don't understand: Is it established in the law whether intent is enough in this case for there to be a crime, or is actual harm required?
Lots of people are saying either "No evidence that any votes were lost" or "He obviously had mens rea." As far as I can tell, both of these statements are probably true. Sometimes in law, intent is enough to create a crime, and sometimes it isn't. For example, attempted murder is a crime, but attempted assault is not (although sometimes attempted _aggravated_ assault is). So, is it established that intent is sufficient for a crime in this particular case or not?
Note that when I say "no evidence" I mean that I don't think the government lawyers submitted any evidence (like a sworn statement by somebody who said that they got fooled and subsequently did not vote because they thought they already had) that anyone was deprived of a vote. I don't mean that there's no rational basis to believe that anyone was deprived.
For comparison, here's the first bit of an Anthem file (which contains some of the data that's just another row in the Humana record), along with the first record
"reporting_entity_name": "Excellus BlueCross BlueShield",
"reporting_entity_type": "Health Insurance Issuer",
"last_updated_on": "2022-06-14",
"version": "1.0.0",
"provider_references": [
{
"provider_group_id": 302.1518360704,
"location": "https://mrf.healthsparq.com/exc-egress.nophi.kyruushsq.com/prd/mrf/EXC_I/EXC/providerReference/Providers/S-000000001063.json"
}
],
"in_network": [
{
"negotiation_arrangement": "ffs",
"name": "Brief (20 minutes) care management home visit for an existing patient. for use only in a medicare-approved cmmi model. (services must be furnished within a benefi",
"billing_code_type": "HCPCS",
"billing_code_type_version": "2022",
"billing_code": "G0081",
"description": "Brief (20 minutes) care management home visit for an existing patient. for use only in a medicare-approved cmmi model. (services must be furnished within a benefi",
"negotiated_rates": [
{
"negotiated_prices": [
{
"negotiated_type": "fee schedule",
"negotiated_rate": 51.1,
"expiration_date": "9999-12-31",
"service_code": [
"11"
],
"billing_class": "professional"
}
],
"provider_references": [
302.1518360704
]
}
]
},
